Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[Kahuna 172]

Aloha Prairie Scouter! We're having some great weather out here for the New Year and good surf, too!

 

Ah the hearings were such a joy to my soul. I disagree with you a bit on the Republicans, but overall you are correct. Of course, they didn't really need to ask any questions as far as I could see. He demonstrated such a phenomenal ability to field the questions of the Democrats. His memory and ability to recall the details of cases he decided years ago just blew me away. Only once, did he falter and asked for time to go back and read an old case and submit his answers in writing.

 

Personally, I don't think the committee needs to ask any legal questions at all. Anybody who gets to that level is going to be legally competent. There may be valid questions about his/her character or about issues of his/her legal ethics, but if they can't find any, they should confirm the nominee. Any Democratic president is going to nominate a liberal judge. Any Republican president will nominate a conservative judge. Was Bork too far right of the mainstream? Was Ginsberg too far left of the mainstream? Who knows. Both of them had no ethical problems or other issues. Both had judicial records with no ethical or legal questions. Ginsberg was confirmed by a Republican Senate. Bork was crucified by a Democratic one.

 

The Democrats will, I predict, lose votes over this debacle. They never laid a glove on him and they treated him like one of the defendants at Nrnberg. Biden was the one who said they may as well not have hearings. It was the only thing I heard him say that made any sense.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Ah, Kahuna, you have such a lovely state. I think I mentioned before I've been there twice, one in 1972 and again in about '88 or so. We're thinking about bringing the whole family out over the next couple of years.

 

Anyway.....

Biden actually had some pleasant things to say about the judge in some of his closing remarks. I agree with most of what's in your post. I don't think he'll have a problem getting confirmed; he's obviously qualified. I don't think the Democrats will filibuster him. The only thing after that will be to see if he can remain impartial in his decisions, as the Dems will have to hope, or if the Republicans got "their guy", as they hope. Over time people will watch his decisions and we'll see. I hope he surprises everyone to some extent.

[John-in-KC 311]

Aloha, Kahuna,

 

I think you're right and wrong in your comment about the Senators not having to ask technical legal questions. It should have been blindingly obvious, very fast, that Judge Alito has forgotten more law than most of these "politician attorneys" ever learned in law school.

 

OTOH, silly season for 2006 is open, and Sam Brownback even showed us Presidential silly season for 2008 has had its opening gong rung (digression: There's an idea: Citizens playing "The Gong Show" with Senators.) Both sides of the aisle were posturing to their bases as part of silly season.

 

As for me, I agree: If the Democrats try a filibuster, they deserve what they get. OTOH, I am still against using the "constitutional option" of changing the Senate's rules of filibuster. That will come back to haunt whoever forces that change. Not now, not five years from now, but it will.

 

Finally, where are Mark Twain and Will Rogers when we really need them? Quite a few of our 535 elected denizens of Capitol Hill could do with some ego deflation.

[Kahuna 172]

And the egos are never more on display than during a televised hearing. This one was classic.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I honestly don't think the Democrats will use the filibuster. They may not like Alito, but I think the only way they could justify a filibuster to the public would be if Alito had given answers to the committee that were blatantly ultra conservative. I thought he did very will in the questioning in that I don't think he caused himself any problems with his answers. He's probably a bit to the right for my way of thinking, but I hope he'll be as objective in his decisions as he says he will be.

 

Although, if the Democrats did filibuster, it'd be interesting to see what argument the Republicans used against it in the public arena. After Harriet Meiers, they certainly can't use the "every candidate deserves and up/down vote" argument.